570663 research-article2015
JAGXXX10.1177/0733464815570663Journal of Applied GerontologyCohen-Mansfield and Jensen
Article
Intergenerational Programs in Schools: Prevalence and Perceptions of Impact
Journal of Applied Gerontology 1–23 © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0733464815570663 jag.sagepub.com
Jiska Cohen-Mansfield1,2 and Barbara Jensen2
Abstract This study examined the prevalence, types, and perceived impact of intergenerational programs in schools. Programs involving senior volunteers assisting children, or children participating in activities with older people were considered. Of the schools reached, 47% reported intergenerational programming. Thirty-three schools in the Tel-Aviv region participated in the study. Data were collected from 85 seniors, 26 teachers, and 20 coordinators. Assessments included program characteristics, program preparation, and perceived benefits and difficulties. Both programs were reported to have beneficial effects for seniors and to benefit children in the academic, social, and emotional domains. However, programs appeared to attract different types of volunteers and different degrees of volunteer commitment. Findings suggest that there is a need to pay additional attention to both participants’ specific requests and needs and to the allocation of resources to improve the design and implementation of intergenerational programs. Keywords intergenerational programs, senior volunteers, shared activities, school, Israel Manuscript received: May 29, 2014; final revision received: December 27, 2014; accepted: January 3, 2015. 1Tel-Aviv
University, Israel Aging Research, Silver Spring, MD, USA
2Innovative
Corresponding Author: Jiska Cohen-Mansfield, Tel-Aviv University, P.O.B. 39040, Ramat Aviv, Tel-Aviv, 69978, Israel. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com by guest on November 18, 2015
2
Journal of Applied Gerontology
Intergenerational programs are social vehicles that foster engagement between younger and older generations by offering opportunities to interact in mutually beneficial, planned activities in which there is a sharing of knowledge, skills, and experience. Their aim is to increase contact and understanding, to build meaningful relationships, to foster emotional and social growth, and to achieve various educational or community goals (Ayala, Hewson, Bray, Jones, & Hartley, 2007; Kaplan, 2002; Newman & Hatton-Yeo, 2008). The rise of such programs is attributed to the combination of a rapid growth in the population of older people alongside the existence of ageist stereotypes, even among young children. The goals of early programs were primarily concerned with counteracting these stereotypes and associated negative attitudes. More recently, the concern with continuing projected growth of the older population and family fragmentation, along with mounting social problems and shrinking resources, has prompted attempts to reformulate these programs to address a broader range of societal concerns. To this end, older persons and youth have come to be perceived as a source of social capital, community assets rather than liabilities. As such, they represent untapped resources that can be harnessed to work together to both help each other and to help society address a broad range of social, economic, and political issues, thereby meeting needs that might otherwise remain unmet (Bishop & Moxley, 2012; Generations United, 2007; Newman & Hatton-Yeo, 2008). Intergenerational programs have been shown to consistently benefit both generations involved. For children and youth, the beneficial outcomes of intergenerational programs include positive changes in perceptions and attitudes about older people (Bales, Eklund, & Siffin, 2000; Cummings, Williams, & Ellis, 2002; Dunham & Casadonte, 2009; Femia, Zarit, Blair, Jarrott, & Bruno, 2008; Heyman, Gutheil, & White-Ryan, 2011; Lynott & Merola, 2007; Meshel & McGlynn, 2004; Wescott & Healy, 2011), prosocial behaviors (Dellmann-Jenkins, Lambert, & Fruit, 1991; Femia et al., 2008), personal growth (Zeldin, Larson, Camino, & O’Connor, 2005), increased self-confidence and self-efficacy (Gamliel & Gabay, 2014; MacCallum et al., 2010), better behavior in school (Carlson, Glass, McGill, Hill, et al., 2004), reduced anxiety (Marx, Pannell, Parpura-Gill, & Cohen-Mansfield, 2004), increased self-management skills at school and interest in schoolwork (Newman, Morris, & Streetman, 1999), enhanced self-regulation (Femia et al., 2008), higher standardized reading test scores (Carlson, Glass, McGill, Rebok, et al., 2004), and academic growth (Kaplan, 2002; Lokon, Kinney, & Kunkel, 2012). For older persons, the benefits of intergenerational programs include greater life satisfaction (Meshel & McGlynn, 2004), physical activity engagement (Flora & Faulkner, 2007), enhanced emotional well-being (Jarrott & Bruno, 2007; Weintraub & Killian, 2007), decreased depressed
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com by guest on November 18, 2015
Cohen-Mansfield and Jensen
3
affect (Hong & Morrow-Howell, 2010; Newman, Karip, & Faux, 1995), increased self-confidence and self-efficacy (Gamliel & Gabay, 2014), and increased social interaction (Short-DeGraff & Diamond, 1996; Varma et al., 2014). Various formats for these programs have evolved, and various classification typologies have been developed. But most programs can generally be subsumed under the following categories: older adults supporting or serving the young, youth supporting or serving older adults, older people and youth collaborating to support the community, older adults and youths engaging together in shared activities, and older adults and the young sharing sites (Ayala et al., 2007; Generations United, 2007). Intergenerational programs can be offered in a variety of community contexts or organizations serving seniors and/or youth, such as senior centers, day care programs, community centers, churches, assisted living and longterm care facilities, and universities (Ayala et al., 2007; Newman & HattonYeo, 2008; Young & Janke, 2013). Ayala et al. (2007) provided an overview of programs offered in such contexts for one Canadian city. The most common model for intergenerational programs, however, may be programs based in schools (Newman & Hatton-Yeo, 2008). Yet, due to time and resource limitations, programs in schools were not covered in the Ayala et al. (2007) report. The field of intergenerational studies is still in early stages of development, and, as such, there is much that has yet to be done to detail the features or assess the impact of existing programs to guide future program development (Kaplan, 2002). Research in this area has tended to be narrative in nature or has been concerned with presenting results from specific programs, many of which have been put in place as demonstration or research projects (e.g., Feldman, Mahoney, & Seedsman, 2003; Glass et al., 2004; Jarrott & Bruno, 2007; Young & Janke, 2013). Less has been done to survey the availability of programs as they have evolved in place in specific communities (Ayala et al., 2007). Furthermore, with research centering on specific programs or in overviews of programs, in general, there is little that allows comparison between different types of programs where they coexist. In addition, many studies on intergenerational programs have been concerned with effects on youth. Fewer have dealt with the perceptions of the older adult participants regarding benefits of these programs (Fees & Bradshaw, 2003; Young & Janke, 2013) or of the perceptions of other stakeholders involved, such as teachers or school personnel. The current article attempts to address some of these shortcomings. The purpose of this research was to document the prevalence of intergenerational programs in schools in the Tel-Aviv metropolitan area, to
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com by guest on November 18, 2015
4
Journal of Applied Gerontology
characterize these programs, and to assess perceptions of their impact from the point of view of various stakeholders (i.e., seniors, teachers, and school coordinators).
Method Recruitment and Procedure The head of the education office at the unit for pedagogic planning and evaluation of Tel-Aviv municipality was contacted to reach the social supervisors in the various schools of Tel-Aviv. Elementary schools, high schools, special education schools, and boarding schools in Tel-Aviv, Ramat-Gan, and Givátayim municipalities were contacted with respect to intergenerational activities. In addition, two non-profit organizations coordinating senior volunteers in schools were contacted for the recruitment of participants. These organizations provided information for schools participating in their programming. In the Tel-Aviv metropolitan area, 114 schools were contacted with regard to intergenerational volunteer programs involving their students. Of the five categories of intergenerational programs mentioned above, two types of volunteer programs were encountered, one involving senior volunteers assisting children (henceforth senior volunteer programs [SVP]), the other involving children participating in different activities with older people (including teaching the older persons how to use computers) at schools or senior centers (henceforth shared activities programs [SAP]). Forty-eight schools (42%) reported conducting volunteer programs; of those, 24 had SVP (50%), 18 had SAP (38%), and 6 offered both programs (13%). Fifty-four schools (47%) reported having no ongoing intergenerational volunteer program, and 12 (11%) schools were not reached despite repeated attempts. Thus, in this study, we focus on two types of intergenerational programs supported by the participating schools—older adults serving children or youth (SVP), and children or youth and older adults participating together in shared activities (SAP; Holmes, 2009). Of the 48 schools reporting intergenerational volunteer programs, only 33 schools (69%) participated in our study. Of these, 22 schools had SVP (67%), 7 schools had SAP (21%), and 4 schools (12%) had both programs. Fifteen schools (31%) with intergenerational programs did not participate. Eight schools were contacted several times, but contact information for volunteers or activity organizers was not received. In three of the schools, either the headmistress (one school) or the volunteers themselves (two schools) were not interested in participating in our study. Two schools asked for additional
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com by guest on November 18, 2015
Cohen-Mansfield and Jensen
5
municipality approval (that was not granted due to lack of municipality cooperation). One school conducted a child volunteer activity of food distribution to older people that did not involve an ongoing connection between the child and older person, and in one school, the volunteer activity had begun only recently. Schools were asked to provide contact information for senior volunteers, teachers with senior volunteers in their classes, and school coordinators involved in organizing senior volunteer activities in the schools. Only senior volunteers, teachers, and coordinators were included in this study as obtaining consent of minors in a school setting is difficult due to logistics. By focusing on the voices of senior volunteers and organizers, this study addresses a gap in the literature, because the perceptions of these groups have not been as well represented as the outcomes for youth in research on these programs (Young & Janke, 2013). Data were collected through questionnaires developed specifically for this study based on a review of the literature and discussions with organizers of intergenerational programs. Questionnaires were developed separately for seniors, teachers, and coordinators/organizers. After obtaining participants’ consent, questionnaires were either completed in a personal interview by trained interviewers with an academic degree in the social sciences or sent by post or electronic mail.
Participants SVP Seniors. We contacted 97 seniors who volunteer in various schools. Of these, 92 were volunteers in elementary schools and 5 in all-age schools (Grades 1-12). Forty-three volunteers of the former group and all 5 volunteers of the latter group agreed to participate in the study, for a total of 48 participants (49%). Of the 49 seniors who did not participate in the study, 29 could not be reached (59%), 11 did not return the questionnaires (22%), and 9 refused to participate (18%). Reasons for refusal were health condition (n = 2), family problem (n = 1), dissatisfaction with the volunteer activity (n = 1), no longer taking part in the volunteer activity (n = 3), and not wishing to be interviewed (n = 2). Teachers. Twenty-six teachers involved with the senior volunteer activity in their classes participated in the study. School coordinators. Twelve organizers of senior volunteer activities in schools participated in the study.
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com by guest on November 18, 2015
6
Journal of Applied Gerontology
SAP Seniors. We contacted 81 seniors involved in SAP. Of these, 78 took part in activities with elementary school students, 3 in activities with special education students, and 1 in activities with high school students. The three volunteers in the special education and the one volunteer with high school activities agreed to participate in the study. Of the 78 seniors involved in elementary school activities, 33 (42%) participated in the study, 5 (6%) were not reached, 25 (32%) did not return the questionnaires, or refused to take part in the study (13%), did not meet the inclusion criteria (did not speak Hebrew or did not participate in the activity, 3%), or did not complete the questionnaire (4%). Reasons cited for not participating in the study included family problem (n = 1), leaving the country (n = 1), lack of time (n = 1), and not finishing the entire activity (n = 1); six participants provided no reason for their disinterest. In total, 37 seniors completed their questionnaires. School coordinators. Six school activity organizers participated in the study. Senior center coordinators. Only two activity organizers were identified and eventually participated in the study. Due to the small sample size, some of their responses are not reported hereinafter.
Assessments All questionnaires began with demographic and background questions including age, gender, and education. All questionnaires also included questions regarding perceived benefits to children and school, including scope and type of benefit (e.g., academic, emotional, social). Seniors. Program characteristics included the role of the senior, length of involvement, extent of involvement (e.g., how many days/hours a week do they volunteer and with how many children), and location of activities. Program preparation included whether expectations were coordinated prior to involvement, receiving guidance prior to volunteering or ongoing guidance (when needed, daily, weekly, monthly), and perceived adequacy of guidance. Perceived benefits to seniors included increased joy and plans to continue the volunteer work. Volunteer task preferences included suitability of location, interest in changing volunteer task, continuing volunteering for a specific task, and meeting other volunteers. Teachers and school coordinators. Perceived benefits to children and school included specific academic improvements (e.g., academic performance, willingness to study, behavior in class, participation in class, class attendance), Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com by guest on November 18, 2015
Cohen-Mansfield and Jensen
7
affective and behavioral benefits (e.g., self-confidence, peer relations, violent behavior), school atmosphere benefits (e.g., improved schoolchildren/school– parents relationships and school atmosphere). Items were rated in a dichotomous manner (yes, no). Perceived program difficulties were assessed via five statements for teachers and seven statements for school coordinators, with higher ratings representing higher concern. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (entirely true; for example, “I am concerned that the volunteers are not using appropriate methods for controlling the class,” “I am concerned about senior’s judgment in their work with children”). Intergenerational attitudes were assessed via five items for teachers and four items for school coordinators (e.g., “I feel the volunteer was matched to my class,” “Establishing a relationship between older people and children is a good idea”). Items were rated on the same 5-point scale. In addition to quantitative assessments, we used verbal open-ended items to assess teachers’ perceptions of the most important contribution(s) of the volunteers and to assess all participants’ perceptions of ways to improve the program.
Results Participant Characteristics Participant background and characteristics are presented in Table 1. The 48 participants in the SVP reported volunteering to be their main activity, having priority over other activities such as family care, study, and hobbies, each of which was noted by close to 40% of the participants. The 37 participants of the SAP had significantly fewer years of education than SVP participants. Males were more likely to participate in SVP than SAP programs ( p = .051). The majority (92.3%) of the 26 teachers involved in SVP were female, with a mean (SD) age of 41.42 (9.99) and 17 (1.69) years of education. The school coordinators for SVP were all female; they included four coordinators of specific areas of learning in the school, three school principals, two vice principals, one school counselor, one home room teacher, and one teacher. The six school coordinators involved in SAP were all female, with an average (SD) age of 49.17 (7.08) and 18 years (0.71) of education.
Program Characteristics SVP. Most (68.1%) of the seniors in the SVP have been volunteering in schools for several years, 21.3% have been volunteering for a year, and about a tenth (10.6%) began volunteering within the previous 6 months. On average Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com by guest on November 18, 2015
8
Journal of Applied Gerontology
Table 1. Participants’ Characteristics. Programs Age (range) Gender (female) Marital status (married) Place of birth Europe North Africa/Middle East Israel Other (the United States/Canada, Former Soviet Union, South America, Asia) Years of education (range) Subjective health (1 = poor) (range)
SVP (n = 48), M (SD)/%
SAP (n = 37), M (SD)/%
Significant p values
71.42 (5.93), (60-85) 58.3 70.8
71.05 (6.91), (61-91) 78.4 64.9
29.2 12.5 47.9 10.4
37.8 18.9 29.8 13.5
16.21 (3.45), (10-30) 2.79 (0.65), (1-4)
12.64 (4.09), n = 28 (4-20) 2.62 (0.79), (1-4)
JAGXXX10.1177/0733464815570663Journal of Applied GerontologyCohen-Mansfield and Jensen
Article
Intergenerational Programs in Schools: Prevalence and Perceptions of Impact
Journal of Applied Gerontology 1–23 © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0733464815570663 jag.sagepub.com
Jiska Cohen-Mansfield1,2 and Barbara Jensen2
Abstract This study examined the prevalence, types, and perceived impact of intergenerational programs in schools. Programs involving senior volunteers assisting children, or children participating in activities with older people were considered. Of the schools reached, 47% reported intergenerational programming. Thirty-three schools in the Tel-Aviv region participated in the study. Data were collected from 85 seniors, 26 teachers, and 20 coordinators. Assessments included program characteristics, program preparation, and perceived benefits and difficulties. Both programs were reported to have beneficial effects for seniors and to benefit children in the academic, social, and emotional domains. However, programs appeared to attract different types of volunteers and different degrees of volunteer commitment. Findings suggest that there is a need to pay additional attention to both participants’ specific requests and needs and to the allocation of resources to improve the design and implementation of intergenerational programs. Keywords intergenerational programs, senior volunteers, shared activities, school, Israel Manuscript received: May 29, 2014; final revision received: December 27, 2014; accepted: January 3, 2015. 1Tel-Aviv
University, Israel Aging Research, Silver Spring, MD, USA
2Innovative
Corresponding Author: Jiska Cohen-Mansfield, Tel-Aviv University, P.O.B. 39040, Ramat Aviv, Tel-Aviv, 69978, Israel. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com by guest on November 18, 2015
2
Journal of Applied Gerontology
Intergenerational programs are social vehicles that foster engagement between younger and older generations by offering opportunities to interact in mutually beneficial, planned activities in which there is a sharing of knowledge, skills, and experience. Their aim is to increase contact and understanding, to build meaningful relationships, to foster emotional and social growth, and to achieve various educational or community goals (Ayala, Hewson, Bray, Jones, & Hartley, 2007; Kaplan, 2002; Newman & Hatton-Yeo, 2008). The rise of such programs is attributed to the combination of a rapid growth in the population of older people alongside the existence of ageist stereotypes, even among young children. The goals of early programs were primarily concerned with counteracting these stereotypes and associated negative attitudes. More recently, the concern with continuing projected growth of the older population and family fragmentation, along with mounting social problems and shrinking resources, has prompted attempts to reformulate these programs to address a broader range of societal concerns. To this end, older persons and youth have come to be perceived as a source of social capital, community assets rather than liabilities. As such, they represent untapped resources that can be harnessed to work together to both help each other and to help society address a broad range of social, economic, and political issues, thereby meeting needs that might otherwise remain unmet (Bishop & Moxley, 2012; Generations United, 2007; Newman & Hatton-Yeo, 2008). Intergenerational programs have been shown to consistently benefit both generations involved. For children and youth, the beneficial outcomes of intergenerational programs include positive changes in perceptions and attitudes about older people (Bales, Eklund, & Siffin, 2000; Cummings, Williams, & Ellis, 2002; Dunham & Casadonte, 2009; Femia, Zarit, Blair, Jarrott, & Bruno, 2008; Heyman, Gutheil, & White-Ryan, 2011; Lynott & Merola, 2007; Meshel & McGlynn, 2004; Wescott & Healy, 2011), prosocial behaviors (Dellmann-Jenkins, Lambert, & Fruit, 1991; Femia et al., 2008), personal growth (Zeldin, Larson, Camino, & O’Connor, 2005), increased self-confidence and self-efficacy (Gamliel & Gabay, 2014; MacCallum et al., 2010), better behavior in school (Carlson, Glass, McGill, Hill, et al., 2004), reduced anxiety (Marx, Pannell, Parpura-Gill, & Cohen-Mansfield, 2004), increased self-management skills at school and interest in schoolwork (Newman, Morris, & Streetman, 1999), enhanced self-regulation (Femia et al., 2008), higher standardized reading test scores (Carlson, Glass, McGill, Rebok, et al., 2004), and academic growth (Kaplan, 2002; Lokon, Kinney, & Kunkel, 2012). For older persons, the benefits of intergenerational programs include greater life satisfaction (Meshel & McGlynn, 2004), physical activity engagement (Flora & Faulkner, 2007), enhanced emotional well-being (Jarrott & Bruno, 2007; Weintraub & Killian, 2007), decreased depressed
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com by guest on November 18, 2015
Cohen-Mansfield and Jensen
3
affect (Hong & Morrow-Howell, 2010; Newman, Karip, & Faux, 1995), increased self-confidence and self-efficacy (Gamliel & Gabay, 2014), and increased social interaction (Short-DeGraff & Diamond, 1996; Varma et al., 2014). Various formats for these programs have evolved, and various classification typologies have been developed. But most programs can generally be subsumed under the following categories: older adults supporting or serving the young, youth supporting or serving older adults, older people and youth collaborating to support the community, older adults and youths engaging together in shared activities, and older adults and the young sharing sites (Ayala et al., 2007; Generations United, 2007). Intergenerational programs can be offered in a variety of community contexts or organizations serving seniors and/or youth, such as senior centers, day care programs, community centers, churches, assisted living and longterm care facilities, and universities (Ayala et al., 2007; Newman & HattonYeo, 2008; Young & Janke, 2013). Ayala et al. (2007) provided an overview of programs offered in such contexts for one Canadian city. The most common model for intergenerational programs, however, may be programs based in schools (Newman & Hatton-Yeo, 2008). Yet, due to time and resource limitations, programs in schools were not covered in the Ayala et al. (2007) report. The field of intergenerational studies is still in early stages of development, and, as such, there is much that has yet to be done to detail the features or assess the impact of existing programs to guide future program development (Kaplan, 2002). Research in this area has tended to be narrative in nature or has been concerned with presenting results from specific programs, many of which have been put in place as demonstration or research projects (e.g., Feldman, Mahoney, & Seedsman, 2003; Glass et al., 2004; Jarrott & Bruno, 2007; Young & Janke, 2013). Less has been done to survey the availability of programs as they have evolved in place in specific communities (Ayala et al., 2007). Furthermore, with research centering on specific programs or in overviews of programs, in general, there is little that allows comparison between different types of programs where they coexist. In addition, many studies on intergenerational programs have been concerned with effects on youth. Fewer have dealt with the perceptions of the older adult participants regarding benefits of these programs (Fees & Bradshaw, 2003; Young & Janke, 2013) or of the perceptions of other stakeholders involved, such as teachers or school personnel. The current article attempts to address some of these shortcomings. The purpose of this research was to document the prevalence of intergenerational programs in schools in the Tel-Aviv metropolitan area, to
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com by guest on November 18, 2015
4
Journal of Applied Gerontology
characterize these programs, and to assess perceptions of their impact from the point of view of various stakeholders (i.e., seniors, teachers, and school coordinators).
Method Recruitment and Procedure The head of the education office at the unit for pedagogic planning and evaluation of Tel-Aviv municipality was contacted to reach the social supervisors in the various schools of Tel-Aviv. Elementary schools, high schools, special education schools, and boarding schools in Tel-Aviv, Ramat-Gan, and Givátayim municipalities were contacted with respect to intergenerational activities. In addition, two non-profit organizations coordinating senior volunteers in schools were contacted for the recruitment of participants. These organizations provided information for schools participating in their programming. In the Tel-Aviv metropolitan area, 114 schools were contacted with regard to intergenerational volunteer programs involving their students. Of the five categories of intergenerational programs mentioned above, two types of volunteer programs were encountered, one involving senior volunteers assisting children (henceforth senior volunteer programs [SVP]), the other involving children participating in different activities with older people (including teaching the older persons how to use computers) at schools or senior centers (henceforth shared activities programs [SAP]). Forty-eight schools (42%) reported conducting volunteer programs; of those, 24 had SVP (50%), 18 had SAP (38%), and 6 offered both programs (13%). Fifty-four schools (47%) reported having no ongoing intergenerational volunteer program, and 12 (11%) schools were not reached despite repeated attempts. Thus, in this study, we focus on two types of intergenerational programs supported by the participating schools—older adults serving children or youth (SVP), and children or youth and older adults participating together in shared activities (SAP; Holmes, 2009). Of the 48 schools reporting intergenerational volunteer programs, only 33 schools (69%) participated in our study. Of these, 22 schools had SVP (67%), 7 schools had SAP (21%), and 4 schools (12%) had both programs. Fifteen schools (31%) with intergenerational programs did not participate. Eight schools were contacted several times, but contact information for volunteers or activity organizers was not received. In three of the schools, either the headmistress (one school) or the volunteers themselves (two schools) were not interested in participating in our study. Two schools asked for additional
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com by guest on November 18, 2015
Cohen-Mansfield and Jensen
5
municipality approval (that was not granted due to lack of municipality cooperation). One school conducted a child volunteer activity of food distribution to older people that did not involve an ongoing connection between the child and older person, and in one school, the volunteer activity had begun only recently. Schools were asked to provide contact information for senior volunteers, teachers with senior volunteers in their classes, and school coordinators involved in organizing senior volunteer activities in the schools. Only senior volunteers, teachers, and coordinators were included in this study as obtaining consent of minors in a school setting is difficult due to logistics. By focusing on the voices of senior volunteers and organizers, this study addresses a gap in the literature, because the perceptions of these groups have not been as well represented as the outcomes for youth in research on these programs (Young & Janke, 2013). Data were collected through questionnaires developed specifically for this study based on a review of the literature and discussions with organizers of intergenerational programs. Questionnaires were developed separately for seniors, teachers, and coordinators/organizers. After obtaining participants’ consent, questionnaires were either completed in a personal interview by trained interviewers with an academic degree in the social sciences or sent by post or electronic mail.
Participants SVP Seniors. We contacted 97 seniors who volunteer in various schools. Of these, 92 were volunteers in elementary schools and 5 in all-age schools (Grades 1-12). Forty-three volunteers of the former group and all 5 volunteers of the latter group agreed to participate in the study, for a total of 48 participants (49%). Of the 49 seniors who did not participate in the study, 29 could not be reached (59%), 11 did not return the questionnaires (22%), and 9 refused to participate (18%). Reasons for refusal were health condition (n = 2), family problem (n = 1), dissatisfaction with the volunteer activity (n = 1), no longer taking part in the volunteer activity (n = 3), and not wishing to be interviewed (n = 2). Teachers. Twenty-six teachers involved with the senior volunteer activity in their classes participated in the study. School coordinators. Twelve organizers of senior volunteer activities in schools participated in the study.
Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com by guest on November 18, 2015
6
Journal of Applied Gerontology
SAP Seniors. We contacted 81 seniors involved in SAP. Of these, 78 took part in activities with elementary school students, 3 in activities with special education students, and 1 in activities with high school students. The three volunteers in the special education and the one volunteer with high school activities agreed to participate in the study. Of the 78 seniors involved in elementary school activities, 33 (42%) participated in the study, 5 (6%) were not reached, 25 (32%) did not return the questionnaires, or refused to take part in the study (13%), did not meet the inclusion criteria (did not speak Hebrew or did not participate in the activity, 3%), or did not complete the questionnaire (4%). Reasons cited for not participating in the study included family problem (n = 1), leaving the country (n = 1), lack of time (n = 1), and not finishing the entire activity (n = 1); six participants provided no reason for their disinterest. In total, 37 seniors completed their questionnaires. School coordinators. Six school activity organizers participated in the study. Senior center coordinators. Only two activity organizers were identified and eventually participated in the study. Due to the small sample size, some of their responses are not reported hereinafter.
Assessments All questionnaires began with demographic and background questions including age, gender, and education. All questionnaires also included questions regarding perceived benefits to children and school, including scope and type of benefit (e.g., academic, emotional, social). Seniors. Program characteristics included the role of the senior, length of involvement, extent of involvement (e.g., how many days/hours a week do they volunteer and with how many children), and location of activities. Program preparation included whether expectations were coordinated prior to involvement, receiving guidance prior to volunteering or ongoing guidance (when needed, daily, weekly, monthly), and perceived adequacy of guidance. Perceived benefits to seniors included increased joy and plans to continue the volunteer work. Volunteer task preferences included suitability of location, interest in changing volunteer task, continuing volunteering for a specific task, and meeting other volunteers. Teachers and school coordinators. Perceived benefits to children and school included specific academic improvements (e.g., academic performance, willingness to study, behavior in class, participation in class, class attendance), Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com by guest on November 18, 2015
Cohen-Mansfield and Jensen
7
affective and behavioral benefits (e.g., self-confidence, peer relations, violent behavior), school atmosphere benefits (e.g., improved schoolchildren/school– parents relationships and school atmosphere). Items were rated in a dichotomous manner (yes, no). Perceived program difficulties were assessed via five statements for teachers and seven statements for school coordinators, with higher ratings representing higher concern. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (entirely true; for example, “I am concerned that the volunteers are not using appropriate methods for controlling the class,” “I am concerned about senior’s judgment in their work with children”). Intergenerational attitudes were assessed via five items for teachers and four items for school coordinators (e.g., “I feel the volunteer was matched to my class,” “Establishing a relationship between older people and children is a good idea”). Items were rated on the same 5-point scale. In addition to quantitative assessments, we used verbal open-ended items to assess teachers’ perceptions of the most important contribution(s) of the volunteers and to assess all participants’ perceptions of ways to improve the program.
Results Participant Characteristics Participant background and characteristics are presented in Table 1. The 48 participants in the SVP reported volunteering to be their main activity, having priority over other activities such as family care, study, and hobbies, each of which was noted by close to 40% of the participants. The 37 participants of the SAP had significantly fewer years of education than SVP participants. Males were more likely to participate in SVP than SAP programs ( p = .051). The majority (92.3%) of the 26 teachers involved in SVP were female, with a mean (SD) age of 41.42 (9.99) and 17 (1.69) years of education. The school coordinators for SVP were all female; they included four coordinators of specific areas of learning in the school, three school principals, two vice principals, one school counselor, one home room teacher, and one teacher. The six school coordinators involved in SAP were all female, with an average (SD) age of 49.17 (7.08) and 18 years (0.71) of education.
Program Characteristics SVP. Most (68.1%) of the seniors in the SVP have been volunteering in schools for several years, 21.3% have been volunteering for a year, and about a tenth (10.6%) began volunteering within the previous 6 months. On average Downloaded from jag.sagepub.com by guest on November 18, 2015
8
Journal of Applied Gerontology
Table 1. Participants’ Characteristics. Programs Age (range) Gender (female) Marital status (married) Place of birth Europe North Africa/Middle East Israel Other (the United States/Canada, Former Soviet Union, South America, Asia) Years of education (range) Subjective health (1 = poor) (range)
SVP (n = 48), M (SD)/%
SAP (n = 37), M (SD)/%
Significant p values
71.42 (5.93), (60-85) 58.3 70.8
71.05 (6.91), (61-91) 78.4 64.9
29.2 12.5 47.9 10.4
37.8 18.9 29.8 13.5
16.21 (3.45), (10-30) 2.79 (0.65), (1-4)
12.64 (4.09), n = 28 (4-20) 2.62 (0.79), (1-4)
